Original post by BankOfPigsI would argue that it is not equality of outcome. With respect to children we are within reason to grant them equaility of opportunity because they have not developed nor had the chance to prove themselves as of yet. This will not end up leading to equality of outcome because these children are still fundamentlly different, with different levels of merit and effort level. We are essentially giving all these people the same opportunity to initiate development, which seems fair in my eyes.
Ofcourse the children would be given equality of opportunity, and in many ways the outcome of their lives will be vastly different. What your proposing however is to take one singular outcome of their lives: their ability to raise their children well, and standardizing it for all.
Unfortunately this is one of the largest motivating factors for adult life. Litterally one of the main reasons I work so hard at the moment, is so that I can provide the best life for my child, and this is true for so many parents that I see in my job every day, many who take extra jobs, work harder, just so they can give their children the best. By claiming that what they do is immoral, and by extension should not happen, we are creating (specifically regarding education) an equality of outcome.
To demonstrate, an idea world in my eyes:
- Children are given equal opportunity to excel in education
- Some children achieve highly, others fail.
- The achievements of children, then adults in life make no difference, as they are not able to use these to benefit their children.
= Equality of outcome in education.
You have created a system that has both equality of opportunity for children, but you create an equality of outcome for adults, where their hard work (specifically refering to education) makes no difference on the lives of their children.
I also think you take an extreme interpretation of my views. I have not said that parents are completely restricted in how what they can do for their child's development. A few examples such as reading to your child, speaking to your child, taking them to museums ect are things that acceptable on the grounds of legitimate partiality. I would argue however that private schools do not fall under this bracket.
This is one of the problems with your argument: you have drawn a line in the sand.
Everything you mention above: taking your child to museums, reading to your child, spending time with them, are wealth-dependent. Just not as extreme a case as private schools.
I have families I work with where both the parents work extreme hours, sometimes 7 days a week. They have no time to take their children to museums or on day trips to broaden their horizons. They would love to, but their existence and the work they need to do to survive, prohibits them from doing so.
Equally, In china, where I currently live, many families due to living in poorer parts of the country, do not have access to the latest books, or any means to acquire them. Some don't have access to computers.
All of the following are dependent on wealth to an extent: Reading to your child, taking them to museums, paying for extra tuition, purchasing educational equipment, paying for private school. The line that you draw in the sand is heavily based on your own experiences. I would presume you live in a western country, and as a result the 'majority' line falls between private school and the rest, hence you dont necessarily realize how wealth-dependent the others are, as most people in western countries can access them.
In reality all are examples of benifits that parents can give their children, if they have the wealth and ability to afford to do so, both in time and money. Saying that a parent choosing one benifit for their child is immoral, but the rest are ok, makes little sense.
One such reason is that this benefit is not only indirectly harmful to other children (which the other factors are as well) but that their benefit can not be enjoyed by others. The children who are already priveleged enough to consider going private are usually those children who are receiving additional support from parents, and are those students who would actually be very beneficial to have in the class. If we did not have private schools and everyone was in a state school, sure we still wouldn't have complete equality of opportunity, but it is better, and more fair because the money a parent unfairly converts into opportunities will at least partially benefit the other children.
Nothing to add to this part. as it all comes back to my central critique of your idea, and whilst a nice idea, fails for me, on my personal rationale, as stated above.
You should note that I am not arguing whether private schools should be abolished. I am arguing whether it is morally right to send your child to a private school. I think it is perfectly possible to have a consistent set of views where you believe that such schools are immoral but still send your child to one.
I agree